The bar for Article 5 NATO action against Iran is high

This picture shows debris of a NATO air defense system that intercepted a missile from Iran headed to Turkey earlier this week, as members of the military alliance feel the heat from the war in the Middle East.

Iran has been attacking multiple countries in response to U.S. and Israeli strikes against it. It has struck the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Its northern neighbor, Azerbaijan, said an Iranian drone injured two civilians on Thursday.

Countries further afield have also been impacted with drones targeting a British airbase in Cyprus this week, while Turkey said NATO air and missile defense systems shot down a missile heading for its airspace on Wednesday. Both countries are members of NATO, bound by Article 5 of its treaty to unite in defense of any member that is attacked.

Visiting North Macedonia on Tuesday, before Turkey claimed it had shot down the Iranian missile, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called Iran an “exporter of chaos” that posed “far-reaching” danger. But he added that the alliance collectively “defend every inch of NATO territory” if needed.

But the bar for a response by the military alliance remains high, experts have said.

Iran denied firing a missile at Turkey but has not responded to drones targeting the British base in Cyprus. The U.K.’s defense ministry said Wednesday that the “Shahed-like drone” — synonymous with Iran which makes one-way Shahed attack drones and has exported them to its ally Russia — “was not launched from Iran.” CNBC has requested further comment from Iran’s foreign ministry.

After the drone attacks, Euronews reported that NATO had not held discussions about them, considering them too minor to warrant talks. CNBC has asked NATO for comment.

Analysts say the incidents show the war could expand to affect the alliance.

Hamish Kinnear, senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at risk analysts Verisk Maplecroft, told CNBC that attacks on Turkey and a UK airbase reflect “Iran’s willingness to widen what it sees as an existential war of survival.”

The incidents raised the stakes further for an expanding regional war, even if it is unclear that Iran was deliberately aiming at Turkey, he said. He said that if Tehran decided to target Turkey more aggressively, it would likely attack U.S. bases and energy infrastructure, “mirroring Iranian tactics in the Persian Gulf.”

Kinnear said Turkey would prefer not to become embroiled in the war on Iran, but would likely consider “direct retaliation” if Iran clearly started targeting it.

NATO members are already contending with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the alliance’s eastern flank. European members of the alliance have depleted their stockpiles as they support Ukraine, and efforts to replenish those have been slow, while pledges to boost defense spending have met roadblocks.

In September, after Russian drones entered Polish airspace, the alliance launched “Eastern Sentry,” an operation to bolster air defenses. While Article 5 was not triggered, the alliance said its commitment to the principle was “ironclad,” adding: “We will continue to respond in the manner, timing, and domain of our choosing.”

Guntram Wolff, senior fellow at Bruegel, told CNBC on Thursday that it would be “a little bit exaggerated to trigger Article 5 because of one missile being shot down.”

“My sense is really that on the military side, Iran will have reduced capabilities of sending missiles and drones, but this will not completely be eliminated. But the scenario I’m really worried about is more a scenario of prolonged instability in Iran itself with then implications for regional stability,” he told CNBC’s “Europe Early Edition.”

“There will always be new kinds of waves of different factions, just like in Yemen, the Houthis sending rockets at ships from time to time. This kind of instability would be really bad for the entire region.”